Kentucky

And the third recent negative news story about local judge's actions involves Jefferson Circuit Court Judge Audra Eckerle's conduct during a criminal trial.  The other recent stories involved federal disrict court Judge Charles Simpson and Jefferson Circuit Court Judge Judith McDonald-Burkman.

Note.  All three stories are an outgrowth of criminal trials.

Here is the story written by Jason Riley with the Courier-Journal.  The allegations against the judge originally were an outgrowth of media remarks made by Clay conerning Judge Eckerle's bias in a criminal trial.  The recent allegations involve statements attributed to Judge Eckerle that a bar complaint should be made.  Attorney Clay sought the judge's recusal accusing her of conspiring to have her her election supporters file bar complaints against him.  In his allegations,  Clay also claims Chief Judge Willett apprised Clay of Judge Eckerle's statements that a bar complaint should be filed against Clay for disparaging remarks he made about Eckerle. 

Free speech issues arise on both sides of this controversy, and although the bar has regulatory control over its members and the judges (who are also lawyers).  These individuals are also citizens of the Commonwealth and the United States with rights as any other citizen to express an opinion, but there is also the criminal defendant's right to a fair trial which includes a fair judge.  Thus, procedures for insuring the criminal defendant's right to scope out any judicial bias should be established which not only minimize but guarantee no negative repercussions to the lawyers and the defendant.  Such should also apply with equal force to civil trials (even though the direct constitutional prescription is as explicity as in criminal cases), and the Seventh Amendment's guarantee to a right of a civil jury trial has not been held applicable to the states.

In any event, Clay wished to voir dire (question) the judge regarding her discussions with the Chief Judge.  If anyone has any comments on the procedure, please make them below.   Some might be interested in the recommended procedures to follow when an attorney wishes to make sure the judge is fair and questions motives for the judge's actions.  Keep in mind the risk of challenging judicial autority and how it might affect further actions.  Hopefully, this is only a theoretical risk.

Attorney for St. Matthews store owner asks judge to recuse herself in arson case

The attorney for a St. Matthews shop owner sentenced to 12 years in prison for burning down her business asked Jefferson Circuit Court Judge Audra Eckerle on Monday to recuse herself from the case and accused Eckerle of conspiring to have supporters file bar complaints against him for comments he made to the media.

Thomas Clay, who represents Susan Kay Lukjan, told Eckerle that he was contacted by Chief Jefferson Circuit Judge Barry Willett after Lukjan was convicted in July, with Willett telling him Eckerle had said a bar complaint should be filed against Clay for disparaging remarks he made about Eckerle.

In August, Clay said, two financial supporters of Eckerle filed complaints with the Kentucky Bar Association, alleging that Clay had been unethical in making false statement about Eckerle to the media, including The Courier-Journal.

On Monday, Clay asked Eckerle if he could question her about her discussions with Willett and what, if any, contact she had with the two people who filed complaints against him.

Eckerle called Clay?s motion ?very creative? but not relevant to the hearing Monday, which was supposed to be about whether Lukjan could be awarded a bond pending her appeal of her conviction for second-degree arson, burning personal property to defraud an insurer and fraudulent insurance acts over $300 in the destruction of her business, Campbell's Gourmet Cottage.

?If people are filing complaints against you for behavior that they allege is unethical, that has nothing to do with the court and its determinations about issues connected with the trial,? Eckerle told Clay.

Clay has repeatedly criticized Eckerle's handling of the case, saying in July that the judge had shown a consistent bias against Lukjan, didn't properly follow the law and denied Lukjan a fair trial.

He said Eckerle ruled inconsistently on objections, giving favorable treatment to prosecutors; didn't properly review the qualifications of prosecution witnesses; failed to ensure the commonwealth turned over exculpatory evidence; and didn't allow a key defense expert to testify because he wasn't properly licensed, which Clay claimed was an error.

FOR REST OF THE NEWS STORY, CLICK ON HEADING ABOVE.

Lukjan's appeal, Clay said in his motion, raises ?monumental? errors ?that occurred as a result of the trial court's blundering evidentiary rulings.?

During Monday?s hearing, Eckerle said she was unsure if she had jurisdiction to rule on Clay?s request for her to recuse herself but said, if she could, she would deny it, saying the motion was ?completely lacking in merit.?

After Lukjan was sentenced in July, Eckerle denied her motion for bail pending an appeal, but the judge did so without issuing reasons for her ruling, according to Clay. On Oct. 22, the state Court of Appeals ruled that Eckerle should have a hearing and issue a written order.

In that hearing Monday, Clay argued that an appeal bond should be considered in part because Lukjan has never missed a court appearance in this case, had a huge support network of family and friends, dozens of whom crowded the courtroom, and had no previous criminal history.

Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Leland Hulbert argued against releasing Lukjan pending the appeal and pointed out that Eckerle had ruled on the issue the day of sentencing and there have been no changes in circumstances.

And Hulbert said if the judge releases Lukjan on an appeal bond, she will get prison credit time while she is out, which would go against the jury?s recommended sentence.

During the hearing, Lukjan asked Eckerle to keep in mind that she was offered a plea bargain that would have resulted in probation but that she chose to fight at trial, claiming her innocence.

Eckerle said she would issue a ruling this week.

After the hearing, Clay said he make a motion to Kentucky Chief Justice John D Minton Jr. asking him to remove Eckerle from the case.

Asked about the bar complaints against him, Clay said one was dismissed and he believes the other either had been or would be dismissed.

In July Clay said, ?There was a bias in this case that arose, for some reason that I can't fathom, before the trial.?

But Hulbert said the judge was fair and that Clay was trying to ?bully the court, and the court would not be bullied.?

In a recent interview, Eckerle would not discuss Clay's specific complaints but said, ?I think my record speaks for itself.?

Reporter Jason Riley can be reached at (502) 584-2197.